Political Crossfire Forums

[The American]

Dookiestix wrote: Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?
Control of the country and it's resources due to the result of a power vacuum. The anger between Shiia and Sunni only intensifies this conflict, IMHO. And both sides know that the U.S. is after their oil.

Imagine our civil war, but with a foreign occupier hungry for our resources and with superior fire power adding to the mess.

The majority of the violence is between Sunni and Shiia. These two warring factions are generally p*ssed at each other, so it's hard not to recognize the civil discourse and war-like actions that is currently taking place.


I have comment and a question.


(comment moved to another thread)
As for questioning;

You will note the bold statements I included. You have distorted statements. They do not recognize we are there for oil. However, if oil is a reason, you must put it in proper perspective. War for oil, and war for oil interests are completely with different meaning. It has been our concern for quite sometime in the crippling of not only the U.S., but the crippling of the economy of the world in not protecting oil interests. The world revolves around the production of oil for energy resources, and basically production of various material we use to obtain proper living, such as tires, to motivate transportation, and other oil base material. In that, I say oil interests in the Middle East are somewhat valuable. You imply we are there to, in my own words, "hog it up"?

If you will check export oil from Iraq and profit, since this war began in 03, you will find Iraq has lend a significant hand in refining and export of their oil resource. Dollar amount is in the billions. Keeping in mind, Iraq is still paying off some of their own previous deficit, that wasn't forgiven from countries abroad.

Is it oil, or oil interests? How much have we profiled so far from being the occupying interest in Iraq? Please be truthful and honest with me.

Trig.

[beachbum bob]

The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?
Control of the country and it's resources due to the result of a power vacuum. The anger between Shiia and Sunni only intensifies this conflict, IMHO. And both sides know that the U.S. is after their oil.

Imagine our civil war, but with a foreign occupier hungry for our resources and with superior fire power adding to the mess.

The majority of the violence is between Sunni and Shiia. These two warring factions are generally p*ssed at each other, so it's hard not to recognize the civil discourse and war-like actions that is currently taking place.


I have comment and a question.


(comment moved to another thread)
As for questioning;

You will note the bold statements I included. You have distorted statements. They do not recognize we are there for oil. However, if oil is a reason, you must put it in proper perspective. War for oil, and war for oil interests are completely with different meaning. It has been our concern for quite sometime in the crippling of not only the U.S., but the crippling of the economy of the world in not protecting oil interests. The world revolves around the production of oil for energy resources, and basically production of various material we use to obtain proper living, such as tires, to motivate transportation, and other oil base material. In that, I say oil interests in the Middle East are somewhat valuable. You imply we are there to, in my own words, "hog it up"?

If you will check export oil from Iraq and profit, since this war began in 03, you will find Iraq has lend a significant hand in refining and export of their oil resource. Dollar amount is in the billions. Keeping in mind, Iraq is still paying off some of their own previous deficit, that wasn't forgiven from countries abroad.

Is it oil, or oil interests? How much have we profiled so far from being the occupying interest in Iraq? Please be truthful and honest with me.

Trig.

[cool_chick]

The American wrote:


Quote: "It would be just fine with you, to see countless people slaughtered,"

If this is not what you meant, you should have carefully worded it better. However, after taking your statement apart, your mindset is recognized.

Then you need glasses or reading comprehension classes or something....

Taking the statement apart doesn't lead a reasonable person to that conclusion.

This is like saying, you don't support welfare? That means it would be fine with you, seeing countless babies starving in the street, naked and shivering, in the pouring rain.

It's misleading, it's inaccurate, and it's a horrible thing to say.

[Dookiestix]

The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Heinz wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The lack of military objectives and the nature of the violence doesn't fit typical interpretations of "civil war." The vast majority of the sectarian violence is revenge killings and terrorist attacks on civilians with no military objectives or direct political objectives. Neither side states what they "want," they're simply killing each other - the lack of any public aspect to the factional desires extends to an absence of explicit territorial ambitions. Iraq is made up of pro-Iranian Shias, nationalist Shias, Islamist Sunnis, Baathist Sunnis, pro-state secularist forces, two major Kurdish mini-governments, and the al qaeda element. This muddled collection of actors contradicts what's commonly seen as structures that define a civil war.

Lessons from history suggest that Iraq, though in chaos, has not yet reached civil war

tell that to the 250 dead iraqis and their families that died last Thursday.... Why? What's your point? Does it help them if they think they are in a civil war?

My reply was to the OP and the definition of civil war. I have no idea wtf you're replying to.

coordinate attacks that killed 250 people is pretty much a civil war tactic...you may not want to accept the fact that Iraq is pretty much out of control and there is no Iraqi govt entity that can do anything about it...another indication of civil war....

He says that there's violence, but due to the fact that they aren't doing things that are usually done in a civil war, like taking out the other's resources and stating obvious and public goals. They seem to have the appearance of merely just wanting to kill eachother for the hell of it. What are the expressed goals of the Sunni insurgents? What about the Shia?

I think the one thing that holds many back from calling it a civil war is the clear lack of coordination from both sides. What do they want? The country or merely revenge for 40 years of Saddam? This makes all the difference. I think it has the potential to be a full blown civil war, but right now it is simply the useless killing of different cultural groups for no reason. Civil wars have a purpose. Your's was to end slavery in the US.

What is the purpose here?
Control of the country and it's resources due to the result of a power vacuum. The anger between Shiia and Sunni only intensifies this conflict, IMHO. And both sides know that the U.S. is after their oil.

Imagine our civil war, but with a foreign occupier hungry for our resources and with superior fire power adding to the mess.

The majority of the violence is between Sunni and Shiia. These two warring factions are generally p*ssed at each other, so it's hard not to recognize the civil discourse and war-like actions that is currently taking place.


I have comment and a question.


(comment moved to another thread)
As for questioning;

You will note the bold statements I included. You have distorted statements. They do not recognize we are there for oil. However, if oil is a reason, you must put it in proper perspective. War for oil, and war for oil interests are completely with different meaning. It has been our concern for quite sometime in the crippling of not only the U.S., but the crippling of the economy of the world in not protecting oil interests. The world revolves around the production of oil for energy resources, and basically production of various material we use to obtain proper living, such as tires, to motivate transportation, and other oil base material. In that, I say oil interests in the Middle East are somewhat valuable. You imply we are there to, in my own words, "hog it up"?

If you will check export oil from Iraq and profit, since this war began in 03, you will find Iraq has lend a significant hand in refining and export of their oil resource. Dollar amount is in the billions. Keeping in mind, Iraq is still paying off some of their own previous deficit, that wasn't forgiven from countries abroad.

Is it oil, or oil interests? How much have we profiled so far from being the occupying interest in Iraq? Please be truthful and honest with me.

Trig.
Nice try at feigning subdued outrage by suggesting that I am not truthful.

The truth shall set you free:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvqRKZhZIY

We have profited mightily with such companies as Halliburton, who saw their stocks more than triple since the invasion. The Iraqi people are not stupid, and they know that we are there because of their oil. They should be the ones who enjoy their oil, and they should be the ones to rebuild their own oil infrustructure, rather than U.S. contractors who are making billions. Meanwhile, our presence continues to exacerbate the problem, and invites armed militias to destroy what we have attempted to rebuild.

As long as we are the occupying force in that country working on securing the Iraqi oil fields in order to undercut OPEC, those oil fields will forever be the targets of more insurgent attacks.

[cool_chick]

No, Dookiesix, the answer is this:

We have gotten Iraq to allow foreign companies to privatize the oil....

A pipe dream, an impossibility under Saddam....

Last I heard, the deals themselves with American companies are still in the works. I am leaning to say (as far as I can recall, that is) it's actually written in their constitution now.....

[The American]

Dookiestix wrote: Nice try at feigning subdued outrage by suggesting that I am not truthful.

The truth shall set you free:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KvqRKZhZIY

We have profited mightily with such companies as Halliburton, who saw their stocks more than triple since the invasion. The Iraqi people are not stupid, and they know that we are there because of their oil. They should be the ones who enjoy their oil, and they should be the ones to rebuild their own oil infrustructure, rather than U.S. contractors who are making billions. Meanwhile, our presence continues to exacerbate the problem, and invites armed militias to destroy what we have attempted to rebuild.

As long as we are the occupying force in that country working on securing the Iraqi oil fields in order to undercut OPEC, those oil fields will forever be the targets of more insurgent attacks.

I never made that suggestion directly. I was curious in how far you would go to support you theory. Thanks for the youtube theory. :wink:

Would you like better information? Chick is pretty darn close, However, there are details she did not mention. Not that she is wrong, but who at this time is in domination of multi-national companies. First, let me toss you a legitamite link. All you would like to know and more.......

Quote:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

Crude Designs:
The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth

Don't let the name detour you into drawing a false conclusion. Chick refers to PSA's which have been around since the 60's.

Quote: Status of Oil Development Deals with Foreign Companies
Prior to the toppling of Iraq's Ba'athist regime, Iraq reportedly had negotiated several multi-billion dollar deals with foreign oil companies mainly from China, France, and Russia. Deutsche Bank estimated that $38 billion worth of contracts were signed on new fields -- "greenfield" development -- with potential production capacity of 4.7 million bbl/d if all the deals came to fruition (which Deutsche Bank believed was highly unlikely). Now, the legal status of these agreements is up in the air, increasing the uncertainty level for companies interested in doing business with Iraq. Besides legal/constitutional issues, companies are also looking for a relatively stable security situation, a functioning government, and other conditions to be in place before they move heavily into the country. In May 2006, Iraq’s new Oil Minister, al-Shahristani, announced his intention to promote transparency throughout the country’s oil industry. In addition, al-Shahristani plans to formulate an investment law with a legal and regulatory framework that is conducive to multinational oil companies.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iraq/Oil.html


I truly didn't know you were so interested in Iraq's oil production and distribution. This should prove to be much better reading than the information you tossed me from...... youtube.

Noting that Haliburton is a key player in the reconstruction of the oil industry in Iraq, you should also realize one of the main reasons that secured the bid, is their ability to work under pressure, particularly in war zones. Left leaning administrations have used them regularly as well.

Enjoy my friend,

Glad to be of service.

Trig.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Technically, it is not a Civil War when two of the factions belong to the same government. When one party cedes from the gov't and engages in warfare against that rival party and/or government. So it is not yet a civil war for the educated who wish to become TRULY educated instead of acting educated. :lol:

[Dookiestix]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Technically, it is not a Civil War when two of the factions belong to the same government. When one party cedes from the gov't and engages in warfare against that rival party and/or government. So it is not yet a civil war for the educated who wish to become TRULY educated instead of acting educated. :lol:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

It's a civil war. Get used to it. And stop laughing.

[The American]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Technically, it is not a Civil War when two of the factions belong to the same government. When one party cedes from the gov't and engages in warfare against that rival party and/or government. So it is not yet a civil war for the educated who wish to become TRULY educated instead of acting educated. :lol:

Good point!

**Thumbs up**

[beachbum bob]

Mr. Sunshine wrote: Technically, it is not a Civil War when two of the factions belong to the same government. When one party cedes from the gov't and engages in warfare against that rival party and/or government. So it is not yet a civil war for the educated who wish to become TRULY educated instead of acting educated. :lol:

how many times can this admin and their supporters be wrong on issues concerning Iraq???

no 9-11 connection
no wmds
no eminent threat
no oil money to pay for war
insurgency in last throes
stay the course

go ahead and maintain the alternative reality....
doesn't change the here and now

[jamesp]

it's not a CIVIL Ware because someone on this FORUM says it is, or some talking head pundent says it is.

I don't know what to call it but the GOVT of IRAQ has not called it a CIVIL WAR, why ? because it's not.

Insurgents who are not even from IRAQ are causing the mayhem.

Civil War is between Countries internal factions, and they are not at that point internally. Insurgents are TRYING to make this a Civil War thats for sure.

Anyway, I have alwasys thought that if a Country such as IRAN gets involved the Insurgents will run for the hills. The Iranians or any other region Country will not tolerate the hiding out in Mosques and such. they WILL go get em'..something WE can't do becasue we will be accused of violating ethnic rules of society and religious sanctity.

Local "LIKE" culture can resolve the insurgency issue, USA Military most likely cannot do to the rules of Society, State and Culture.

You put an Iranian Army on the ground in Iraq this thing will end very soon..

but what happens next may be a totally other issue to deal with.

[Kilo Tango]

Dookiestix wrote:

We have profited mightily with such companies as Halliburton, who saw their stocks more than triple since the invasion. The Iraqi people are not stupid, and they know that we are there because of their oil. They should be the ones who enjoy their oil, and they should be the ones to rebuild their own oil infrustructure, rather than U.S. contractors who are making billions. Meanwhile, our presence continues to exacerbate the problem, and invites armed militias to destroy what we have attempted to rebuild.

As long as we are the occupying force in that country working on securing the Iraqi oil fields in order to undercut OPEC, those oil fields will forever be the targets of more insurgent attacks. The war had nothing to do with Halliburton's stock price - which actually peaked in 1997. Halliburton loses money on Iraq. Halliburton's stock was around 10 bucks in 2001/2002 because of a bad takeover of Dresser which had asbestos lawsuits against it. Their stock subsequently rose along with the price of oil, which is their main business.

[Mr. Sunshine]

beachbum bob wrote: Mr. Sunshine wrote: Technically, it is not a Civil War when two of the factions belong to the same government. When one party cedes from the gov't and engages in warfare against that rival party and/or government. So it is not yet a civil war for the educated who wish to become TRULY educated instead of acting educated. :lol:

how many times can this admin and their supporters be wrong on issues concerning Iraq???

no 9-11 connection
no wmds
no eminent threat
no oil money to pay for war
insurgency in last throes
stay the course

go ahead and maintain the alternative reality....
doesn't change the here and now

It looks like the alternative reality is the one that is not happening. Your reality has us cutting and running. It is not happening. Who is truly educated and who is truly deluded. Enjoy the warmth of "knowing your right" while nothing you contend or predict actually occurs. :lol: Priceless and highly entertaining. Thanks a lot. 8:)

[mendosan]

for this debate to continue we really need to define "Civil war."

civil war noun [C]
a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country:
The Spanish Civil War lasted from 1936 to 1939.
dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=13755&dict=CALD

Looks like it qualifies to me although whether you can whats going on a "War" is debatable, Its certainly not like the traditional concept of a civil war for example, the Spanish or American Civil wars. But the nature of war has changed, I'm gonna personally refrain from calling it one until there are some political objects put forward by the opposing sides.

BTW, when people are saying US/UK forces are exasberating the security problems in Iraq they don't mean there causing civil war, they mean there drawing violence that wouldn't be there if they were redeployed away from population centers.

[Mr. Sunshine]

mendosan wrote: for this debate to continue we really need to define "Civil war."

civil war noun [C]
a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country:
The Spanish Civil War lasted from 1936 to 1939.
dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=13755&dict=CALD

Looks like it qualifies to me although whether you can whats going on a "War" is debatable, Its certainly not like the traditional concept of a civil war for example, the Spanish or American Civil wars. But the nature of war has changed, I'm gonna personally refrain from calling it one until there are some political objects put forward by the opposing sides.

BTW, when people are saying US/UK forces are exasberating the security problems in Iraq they don't mean there causing civil war, they mean there drawing violence that wouldn't be there if they were redeployed away from population centers.

The thing is that the liberal agenda has miscalculated the impact of pushing the semantics of this term. They think they can generate a response to get us out of Iraq because of the "civil war" label. All they are doing is empowering coalition forces to further engage militarily. Once their is a faction officially against the democratically elected gov't, we are duty bound to quell that faction. This debate in essence is giving us the license to kill the Mehdi Army and actively engage Iranian militia in Iraq. As a conservative hawk, I am loving it as it gives us the excuse to broaden the conflict. War powers lie incontrovertibly with the Executive via our Constitution. Do the liberals really think Bush will "cut and run" with a greater excuse to clean up a perceived worsening situation threatening the "young democracy" in Iraq? :lol: Finally, figured out a way to get the other half of the country behind the war effort. Thank the universe for civil wars. :rofl: 8:)

[Refrozen Seabass]

Quote: BTW, when people are saying US/UK forces are exasberating the security problems in Iraq they don't mean there causing civil war, they mean there drawing violence that wouldn't be there if they were redeployed away from population centers.

I'm saying the United States is the cause, thanks.

These groups either existed before the invasion, or they did not. If they did not, then their existence is a reaction to the US invasion, and it's ultimately the US's fault: the situation is of their making.

If they did, then whatever mechanism existed to hold them in check was destroyed by the invasion and the dissolving of Iraq's sovereign government. The situation is still a result of the United States' failure to properly maintain civil order.

The United States is most certainly the cause of the situation in Iraq. None of this was happening before the United States invaded.

And it is, in fact, a civil war. I didn't even need to check my updated Liberal Agenda, it's obvious.

[Heinz]

Quote: Control of the country and it's resources due to the result of a power vacuum. The anger between Shiia and Sunni only intensifies this conflict, IMHO. And both sides know that the U.S. is after their oil.

No, the Sunnis know that the Shias are after the oil. The Sunni could care less who buys the oil if the control it, even if it is us, they just want the control that the Shia are trying to take away.

Quote: Imagine our civil war, but with a foreign occupier hungry for our resources and with superior fire power adding to the mess.

Your civil war was about state rights and slavery. What is this one about? There's a reason that it's been labeled sectarian violence. It consist more of one group killing another and vice versa. Some groups may be looking to gain power in the government, or to destroy it all together, but the majority of the violence is Sunni/Shia infighting perpetuated by the groups hatred for one another.

Quote: The majority of the violence is between Sunni and Shiia. These two warring factions are generally p*ssed at each other, so it's hard not to recognize the civil discourse and war-like actionsthat is currently taking place.

War-like actions? Like what? Killing someone?

There's civil discourse in America...are you in the middle of a civil war?

[Heinz]

Quote: If they did, then whatever mechanism existed to hold them in check was destroyed by the invasion and the dissolving of Iraq's sovereign government. The situation is still a result of the United States' failure to properly maintain civil order.

It's name was Saddam.

Also, I would tend to think that the Iraqis would want for civil obedience to exist in their nation. It shouldn't be the job of the US to conduct search and seizure operations in someone else's country. If Iraq was so concerned about criminals and violence, they would take care of it themselves. Same goes for Afghanistan.

Quote: These groups either existed before the invasion, or they did not. If they did not, then their existence is a reaction to the US invasion, and it's ultimately the US's fault: the situation is of their making.

The groups are Sunni and Shiite...They've existed since the late 800s.

[mendosan]

Refrozen Seabass wrote: Quote: BTW, when people are saying US/UK forces are exasberating the security problems in Iraq they don't mean there causing civil war, they mean there drawing violence that wouldn't be there if they were redeployed away from population centers.

I'm saying the United States is the cause, thanks.

These groups either existed before the invasion, or they did not. If they did not, then their existence is a reaction to the US invasion, and it's ultimately the US's fault: the situation is of their making.

If they did, then whatever mechanism existed to hold them in check was destroyed by the invasion and the dissolving of Iraq's sovereign government. The situation is still a result of the United States' failure to properly maintain civil order.

The United States is most certainly the cause of the situation in Iraq. None of this was happening before the United States invaded.

And it is, in fact, a civil war. I didn't even need to check my updated Liberal Agenda, it's obvious.

Thats a separate point the US/UK have provided the environment for civil war yeah! I agree.

My point is that particularly UK forces are drawing violence towards them in areas that are peaceful, do instead of being a stabilizing or policing force there basically the problem.

[Refrozen Seabass]

Heinz wrote: It's name was Saddam.

Okay.

Quote: Also, I would tend to think that the Iraqis would want for civil obedience to exist in their nation.

Me too. Sadly for them, the US invaded them and blew everything straight to hell.

Quote: It shouldn't be the job of the US to conduct search and seizure operations in someone else's country.

Yes, it should. You invaded it, you occupied it, it's your baby now. But we weren't discussing who should remedy the situation, we were discussing the cause. The cause is the illegal invasion and occupation, and the decision to invade and occupy was the United States'. That makes it your fault.

Quote: If Iraq was so concerned about criminals and violence, they would take care of it themselves. Same goes for Afghanistan.

Well I guess they should have thought of that before asking you to invade their country, disband their military, and allow the country to disintegrate into chaos out of sheer ineptitude.

Quote: Quote: These groups either existed before the invasion, or they did not. If they did not, then their existence is a reaction to the US invasion, and it's ultimately the US's fault: the situation is of their making.

The groups are Sunni and Shiite...They've existed since the late 800s.

Yes, I know. I present an either/or situation. As it happens, the second scenario is the correct one: these people were held in check until the United States removed the mechanism that held them in check. But it would still be the fault of the US had the first option been the correct one and these sects had arisen because of the invasion.

There's no way around it. The United States caused the situation in Iraq. It is the United States' fault. Had you not invaded, there would be no civil war in Iraq. I don't know how else to express this.